• @fubo
    link
    40
    edit-2
    2 hours ago

    The answer given in the spoiler tag is not quite correct!

    Test case

    According to the spoiler, this shouldn’t match “abab”, but it does.

    Corrected regex

    This will match what the spoiler says: ^.?$|^((.)\2+?)\1+$

    Full workup

    Any Perl-compatible regex can be parsed into a syntax tree using the Common Lisp package CL-PPCRE. So if you already know Common Lisp, you don’t need to learn regex syntax too!

    So let’s put the original regex into CL-PPCRE’s parser. (Note, we have to add a backslash to escape the backslash in the string.) The parser will turn the regex notation into a nice pretty S-expression.

    > (cl-ppcre:parse-string "^.?$|^(..+?)\\1+$")
    (:ALTERNATION
     (:SEQUENCE :START-ANCHOR (:GREEDY-REPETITION 0 1 :EVERYTHING) :END-ANCHOR)
     (:SEQUENCE :START-ANCHOR
      (:REGISTER
       (:SEQUENCE :EVERYTHING (:NON-GREEDY-REPETITION 1 NIL :EVERYTHING)))
      (:GREEDY-REPETITION 1 NIL (:BACK-REFERENCE 1)) :END-ANCHOR))
    

    At which point we can tell it’s tricky because there’s a capturing register using a non-greedy repetition. (That’s the \1 and the +? in the original.)

    The top level is an alternation (the | in the original) and the first branch is pretty simple: it’s just zero or one of any character.

    The second branch is the fun one. It’s looking for two or more repetitions of the captured group, which is itself two or more characters. So, for instance, “aaaa”, or “ababab”, or “abbabba”, but not “aaaaa” or “abba”.

    So strings that this matches will be of non-prime length: zero, one, or a multiple of two numbers 2 or greater.

    But it is not true that it matches only “any character repeated a non-prime number of times” because it also matches composite-length sequences formed by repeating a string of different characters, like “abcabc”.

    If we actually want what the spoiler says — only non-prime repetitions of a single character — then we need to use a second capturing register inside the first. This gives us:

    ^.?$|^((.)\2+?)\1+$.

    Specifically, this replaces (..+?) with ((.)\2+?). The \2 matches the character captured by (.), so the whole regex now needs to see the same character throughout.

    • @ikidd
      link
      English
      152 hours ago

      I upvoted this because I hate it.

      • @fubo
        link
        6
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Whatever you do, don’t get in a time machine back to 1998 and become a Unix sysadmin.

        (Though we didn’t have CL-PPCRE then. It’s really the best thing that ever happened to regex.)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 hour ago

        I upvoted you because I consider Perl write only (used to know it, now it inspires readable code as a high priority)

    • @taiyang
      link
      140 minutes ago

      Thanks, I now have insight into my own personal hell for when I die.

      • @fubo
        link
        110 minutes ago

        Regex is good for a few very specific things, and sysadmins used to use it for goddamn everything. If all your server logs are in lightly-structured text files on a small number of servers, being able to improvise regex is damn useful for tracking down server problems. Just write a shell loop that spawns an ssh logging into each server and running grep over the log files, to look for that weird error.

        These days, if you need to crunch production server logs you probably need to improvise in SQL and jq and protobufs or systemd assmonkery or something.

        But if you actually need a parser, for goodness sake use a parser combinator toolkit, don’t roll your own, especially not with regex. Describing your input language in plain Haskell is much nicer than kludging it.

        (This is the “totally serious software engineering advice” forum, right?)

  • @RegalPotoo
    link
    English
    175 hours ago

    Syntactically valid Perl

    • @RegalPotoo
      link
      English
      6
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Something like

      !“A line with exactly 0 or 1 characters, or a line with a sequence of 1 or 3 or more characters, repeated at least twice”!<

      • @NateNate60OP
        link
        23 hours ago

        It’s a line with a sequence of two or more characters repeated at least twice.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          33 hours ago

          Only the part after the pipe character. The pipe character works as an “or” operator. RegalPotoo is right.

          • @NateNate60OP
            link
            22 hours ago

            They said—

            A line with exactly 0 or 1 characters, or a line with a sequence of 1 or 3 or more characters, repeated at least twice

            Note—

            …or a line with a sequence of 1 or 3 or more characters, repeated at least twice

            It should be—

            …or a line with a sequence of 2 or more characters, repeated at least twice

            The regex in the post will match “abab”. Their original description (line 2 of this comment) will not match “abab”.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              253 minutes ago

              I agree, you’re right about the part after the pipe and RegalPotoo’s explanation was not entirely correct.

    • @yrmp
      link
      42 hours ago

      Regex should generally be avoided wherever possible.

      • @NateNate60OP
        link
        72 hours ago

        Yeah but it’s just so tempting… It validates so many inputs so easily…

        • @yrmp
          link
          52 hours ago

          And misses others you didn’t think about.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            351 minutes ago

            Yeah, I’ve found myself wasting quite a lot of time thinking of the ‘perfect regex’ for task X only to realise that I could have avoided doing so by simply taking a different approach.